On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Tom Tromey wrote:
Harald Please see subject. Of course I would agree that this
Harald dependency is usually a good thing, but sometimes it might
Harald be helpfull to do a 'make install' for another prefix e.g.
Harald in your
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Thomas Dickey wrote:
If 'make install' does not depend on all, then it may misbehave since
necessary dependencies may not be built. Regardless of unexpected
side-effects (to the user), it is the technically correct thing to do.
you're confusing expected (conventional)
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
but that doesn't make much sense.
still no: there are people who really do _not_ want make install
to create new files (because that's the way they want to do installs).
When they see it doing that, it's a bug.
You're welcome to produce code the
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
but that doesn't make much sense.
still no: there are people who really do _not_ want make install
to create new files (because that's the way they want to do installs).
When they see it doing that, it's
Harald == Harald Dunkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald Please see subject. Of course I would agree that this
Harald dependency is usually a good thing, but sometimes it might
Harald be helpfull to do a 'make install' for another prefix e.g.
Harald in your stow directory without verifying all
Hi folks,
Please see subject. Of course I would agree that this
dependency is usually a good thing, but sometimes it might
be helpfull to do a 'make install' for another prefix e.g.
in your stow directory without verifying all the dependencies
again.
It would be easy to split the old install
